The laws of nature existed before space and time

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The proof is in the evidence.

False. This is a philosophical argument. You often mistake assertions for evidence.

 

[ding]

False. This is a philosophical argument. You often mistake assertions for evidence.

The evidence is the same laws that describe the evolution of space and time also describe the creation of space and time. What EVIDENCE do you have that says they don't?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The evidence is the same laws that describe the evolution of space and time also describe the creation of space and time.

Which could mean all of it started at the same time, at the beginning of our spacetime.

What he describes is a possible explanation for the evidence.

There is still much work to do to rule out other explanations.

So this is stuck at the philosophical stage.

 

[ding]

Which could mean all of it started at the same time, at the beginning of our spacetime.

What he describes is a possible explanation for the evidence.

There is still much work to do to rule out other explanations.

So this is stuck at the philosophical stage.

None of that is EVIDENCE.

Proof requires evidence, but not all evidence constitutes proof. Proof is a fact that demonstrates something to be real or true. Evidence is information that might lead one to believe something to be real or true.

For example the CMB is evidence of a massive paired particle production chain event that proves the universe was created from matter that was not pre-existing.

Another example would be the evidence of the laws that describe the evolution of space and time (conservation, relativity and quantum mechanics) also describing the creation of the universe is proof that the laws of nature existed before space and time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

None of that is EVIDENCE.

I didn't even attempt to describe any evidence.

I said what you are calling evidence is not good evidence, as it can very easily be explained in other ways.

Much work to be done. Like multiverse theory. Though multiverse theory is much more roclbust, mathematically.

This hypothesis comes with little to no such rigor and is more of a philosophical idea, from the start.

It could be true. But I would keep the champagne on ice.

 

[ding]

I didn't even attempt to describ3 any ecid3nc3.

I said what you are calling evidence is not good evidence, as it can very easily be explained in other ways.

Much work to be done. Like multiverse theory. Though multiversity theory is much more roclbust, mathematically.

This hypothesis comes with little to no such rigor.

It could be true. But I would keep the champagne on ice.

What's your evidence that the laws of nature did not exist before space and time?

For example the CMB is evidence of a massive paired particle production chain event that proves the universe was created from matter that was not pre-existing.

Another example would be the evidence of the laws that describe the evolution of space and time (conservation, relativity and quantum mechanics) also describing the creation of the universe is proof that the laws of nature existed before space and time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What's your evidence?

Normally this is where I would say, "Of what?" Then, we would go in circles for 3 pages, consisting of dismissing your strawman and personal comments.

But I don't have time for your time wasting trolling today.

Maybe later.

 

[ding]

Normally this is where I would say, "Of what?" Then, we would go in circles for 3 pages, consisting of dismissing your strawman and personal comments.

But I don't have time for your time wasting trolling today.

Maybe later.

You have no evidence that the laws of nature did not exist before space and time. None, nada, zip, zilch, zero.

 

[Donald H]

False. This is a philosophical argument. You often mistake assertions for evidence.

It's Vilenkin's theory, you're debating, but he made it unambiguously clear that he excluded any influences by a god.

See the link I posted in which he is harangued at by a Christian trying to credit their god. He just doesn't buy it!

 

[ding]

It's Vilenkin's theory, you're debating, but he made it unambiguously clear that he excluded any influences by a god.

See the link I posted in which he is harangued at by a Christian trying to credit their god. He just doesn't buy it!

He doesn't need to. All that matters to me is he testified to the evidence which proves the laws of nature existed before space and time.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Again the biggest flaw in comparing the Doppler effect of sound to that of light, the bending of sound increases til you can no longer hear the car, where's the evidence that the red light around the galaxies is increasing? The theory clearly states that the red shift is caused by movement away from us, at almost LIGHT SPEED!!! The red shift is caused by distance not movement.

 

[cnm]

Nope. It's always subject to new evidence. Do you have any that says otherwise? I don't.

I guarantee we don't presently have the answers you are so blithe to assert and the explanations will change.

 

[cnm]

Proof requires evidence, but not all evidence constitutes proof. Proof is a fact that demonstrates something to be real or true. Evidence is information that might lead one to believe something to be real or true.

Science doesn't do proof.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

I still enjoy this four minutes of ridicule of science more then the hours of trying to understand bottomless pits.

 

[ding]

I guarantee we don't presently have the answers you are so blithe to assert and the explanations will change.

We have evidence. Are you suggesting we should ignore the evidence?

It's almost as if you are saying that since we don't know everything we can never know anything? That's a horrible philosophy.

 

[ding]

Science doesn't do proof.

Science does evidence. Proof requires evidence.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think the far deeper question is how could a mechanistic universe come into existence (as it obviously did) prior to mechanistic processes operating? We simply cannot attribute its existence to some hypothetical mechanistic process, we must attribute it to something else, something not mechanistic.

This is what leads us to postulate "will" or "spirit" an agency that is not mechanistic, not deterministic yet able to elicit change, change not due to laws but due to will, creative intent.

Because the means by which the universe arose is not mechanistic, not driven by laws, the only way it could be conveyed to humans is "In the beginning, God created..." that's about all that can be said. There's no prospect of "this happened and then this happened and because of that this then happened" the step-by-step mechanistic explanation cannot be applied.

 

[alang1216]

The same laws of nature which describe the creation of space and time also describe the evolution of space and time. Therefore, the laws of nature existed before space and time.

Sounded to me like he was saying that the theory that everything came from nothing is not impossible. If something is not impossible there is a definite probability it may happen but that is a far cry from evidence that it did happen.

 

[ding]

I think the far deeper question is how could a mechanistic universe come into existence (as it obviously did) prior to mechanistic processes operating? We simply cannot attribute its existence to some hypothetical mechanistic process, we must attribute it to something else, something not mechanistic.

This is what leads us to postulate "will" or "spirit" an agency that is not mechanistic, not deterministic yet able to elicit change, change not due to laws but due to will, creative intent.

For the sake of argument, why not? Why can't it be a mechanistic process?

For the record I don't believe it was a process at all, mechanistic or otherwise.

 

[ding]

Sounded to me like he was saying that the theory that everything came from nothing is not impossible. If something is not impossible there is a definite probability it may happen but that is a far cry from evidence that it did happen.

What he said was this, [It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.] Viliken